WP: First-in-Nation Status of Iowa, N.H. May Be Up for Grabs

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28041-2005Mar11?language=printer

Iowa coffee shops and New Hampshire town hall meetings are staples of presidential nominating battles, as familiar to followers of American politics as national conventions and candidate debates. But the long run of the two states at the front of the nomination process may be in jeopardy.

For decades, Iowa and New Hampshire have held the opening and most coveted spots on the calendar, with the power to winnow the field of candidates and select the finalists for the parties' nominations before most Americans begin paying serious attention to presidential politics.

Their role has bred resentment, however, particularly from Democrats who say the two small states with largely white populations are neither large enough nor diverse enough to be granted such an influential role in selecting presidential nominees. Today , a newly appointed Democratic Party commission with an unwieldy name will begin debating whether it's time to let other states supplant Iowa and New Hampshire at the front end.

The Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling represents the fruits of a long-standing campaign by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), long a critic of the role of Iowa and New Hampshire. Levin pulled back a challenge to the two states during the 2004 campaign in return for a pledge from then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe to review of the entire calendar before 2008.

"What we're focusing on is removing the huge impact, the disproportionate impact, the discriminatory impact, the unfair impact that two states have on this process because they've insisted they go ahead of everybody else," Levin said. "They cannot sustain the fairness of a position where candidates visit them probably 50 times more than any other state."

[lonestarnot]

1. It's about time this is changed...Where? Next?

[dsc]

2. Maryland would be close to ideal

It has a very diverse population and is heavily Democratic. It is also small enough to effectively campaign in a retail manner.

[lonestarnot]

3. How bout Cali? Diverse population and huge...

[ticapnews]

13. Too huge...

The costs of campaigning in California first would severely limit the field.

[Carolab]

4. About time this was being discussed. Minnesota should be on the same day

as Iowa, at least. We are the liberal Democratic state in this part of the country. We were SO pissed when Iowa beat up on Howard Dean.

[EST]

5. Too much to hope for, I suppose

that we might have simultaneous primaries, say, in early June, to go along with instant runoff elections and a constitutional guarantee of the right to vote.

[Blue_Tires]

6. long.fucking.overdue

[LiberallyInclined]

7. it should be rotated among groups of states...

the primary season should be shorter, and a little later in the year- maybe late spring thru early summer. the states could be divided into 5 regions(maybe 4 or 6) and the region that goes first could change/rotate for each election cycle.

it would definitely be more equitable than the current system.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. kick

[realFedUp]

9. Cspan now covering Commission on Presidential Nominees - DNC host

Thomas Mann was just awful...he should
have just called his presentation in...
or faxed his three points.

Ronald Walters is more detailed about insights.

NH and Iowa should definitely be dropped as
first states. The system can be gamed too
easily in those caucuses.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The problem is the disproportionately large egos of Iowa and New Hampshire

have consistently failed to produce a winner in November for the Democrats. Big Dog was not the winner in Iowa and NH, yet he was elected President in 1992.

It's not only the egos, but greed! These two states covet the attention and the dollars that the candidates spent in nearly 3 years of campaigning they invest campaigning in Iowa and NH. This "retail" style of politics contributes little in the Presidential sweepstakes. A candidate that appears warm and fuzzy face to face, may come across as aloof and elitist on TV in the Fall.

On edit:

The current system should be scrapped altogether, including front loading primaries. The primary system should be made up exclusively of regional contests, that will be rotated every 4 years. There will be no Iowa or NH going solo.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Finally...

When will this Commission be done with its work and make recommendations? The media keys off of those two states because of their laziness in coverage. To go anywhere else in the nation, for primaries NOT Caucuses, throws the media whores off too and that can only be good for us.

The compressed primary schedule was also complicit as one of the worst political ideas of the 21st century! It totlally helped r's and the media whores got to be quintessentially lazy.

ed: clarity

[cascadiance]

15. As a former resident of Iowa

(the liberal part near Iowa City that is), I do find the caucus format interesting for the first "primary" in that it gets the participants talking more about what they are going to vote for than primary states do. Perhaps in looking at other options in terms of "first states", we look at other states with caucuses as well that can talk out the initial voting for a party's candidates. On the one hand I like the fact that primaries don't pressure people to vote a certain way. On the other hand, at those early stages of the game, it might help to still have people talking more amongst their party colleagues before casting their votes to help make the right "first stab" at giving a candidate an initial lead. Not that it has to be Iowa or New Hampshire, mind you, but if a state like New Mexico went in a caucus format, I think they might be a good western "balance" from a small state to help provide a greater snapshot of things.

It is difficult to find a good "smaller" state with enough ethnic diversity that isn't too out of step with America as a whole, and yet isn't too big to decide things too early either.

[Pithy Cherub]

16. A caucus format should come after a primary one.

Iowa has a thing about ethanol... First in the nation (Iowa) also meant getting to know the candidates. They are still in the process of fleshing out positions and commentary. A caucus may be good after a primary as there is more information for influence, persuasion and horestrading.

Your point about diversity is well taken and that leads to a selection of states that won't blow the candidates budgets right off the bat...(like mine CA) :)

[ticapnews]

12. A possible solution...

I would propose the nation be divided into regions like this:

Northeast (8)
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
Pennsylvania

Mid-Atlantic (8)
New Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
DC
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina

South (9)
Florida
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Kentucky

Midwest (9)
Iowa
Arkansas
Missouri
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin

Plains (9)
Kansas
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
Utah

West (8)
Washington
Oregon
California
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Alaska
Hawaii

The week of January 6, 2008 the first states in each region would host a primary/caucus. To pacify New Hampster and Iowa, we let them hold the Northeast and Midwest primaries. Maryland would hold the Mid-Atlantic. Arizona or New Mexico in the West; any state but Texas or Florida in the South; any state could hold the first one in the Plains. The second primary in each region would be held the week of January 27, the third the week of February 10 and the fourth the week of February 24.

Then Super Tuesday on March 11. California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Colorado.

The regions with extra states (Midwest, South, Plains) hold their primaries the next week. Then we finish with primaries the weeks of March 30, April 13&27 and May 11.

The major advantage to this format is the geographic and cultural diversity in each week's primary/caucus. It would provide a good mix of urban/rural, white/black/Hispanic and a different part of the country is represented each week, increasing the odds that local media will follow the results of a neighboring state's primary. It might also prevent candidates from writing off entire sections of the country.

There are negatives to such a plan, but I think they are offset by the advantages.

Any thoughts?

[VegasWolf]

14. Good, they've done so well for us! Not! n/t

[Blue to the bone]

17. Agreed, the system needs to be re-thought.

I don't see how it's helpful to us to have our nominee basically selected long before most of the primaries are even held.

And despite what anyone may say, those two states are no where near representative of a typical state in the union.

Look what good this system has done for to date.